Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

I wouldn't single out Turrican for comparison. The fact is that the C64 has many games that use 320 mode in ways the Atari can't. This allows the 64 to have ports of many games primarily developed for 16-bit systems.

 

The Atari was designed with very flexible hardware for its time. The 64's hardware was more streamlined and concentrated on the features that would become essential for 80's style gaming. The 64 doesn't do everything well, but it sure excels at the most important stuff.

 

I don't see any reason not to have both machines around. They are both giant computing milestones.

 

(kum by ya)

 

That's a subjective comparison as to "most important stuff" since software targetted for the C64's sprites and color RAM would be harder to port to Atari. However, even PC had 640*200 mode and a better text mode 80*25*16 but that was one aspect of the hardware and it lacked in custom chips for doing other audio/video stuff. If you use DLIs and DLists you can make a very colorful 320*200 display that can't be ported to C64. It's easy to mix Gr.9 16-shades with Gr.8 text and Gr.2 text (not even considering sprite overlays). If games targetted the Atari's custom chips even at 320 mode, Atari's stuff would be hard to port. Let's not forget that DLs allow for time compression as well so depending on application you can make the display 320*40 and save all the DMA cycles for all other scanlines.

[FastRobPlus]

PS: Is there something like 'Landscape' on the C64? I really like to know...

 

Found it under the other name (was hard to remember): Stealth

 

Atari-Version:

+ background GFX / colours

+ fighter GFX / colours

+ plays more fluid

+ sound FX is richer

 

C64:

+ opponent Gfx (richer sprites)

- tower is somewhat disappointing compared to the Atari version

 

Try it out.

 

CU

Irgendwer

 

 

 

 

I think you got to images swapped. There's no way the C= can produce those colors.

Edited December 10, 2008 by FastRobPlus

[Fröhn]

But the upper bound comparison is the best ratio where C64 screen is blank and Atari is blank for applications that only need to output say color codes or something or for higher quality audio. In that case Atari is 68% faster.

Real world applications which blank the screen are not too common. Packers do that, but what else? Sound? Ok 4 channel mod replay perhaps but there CPU speed is only a sidenote, more important is the output quality and that relies on more things than MHz alone.

 

Now let's take the worst case where Atari uses the char mode and sprites to the C64's worst case where you also constantly read char data by manipulating the VIC registers and are also showing all sprites...

You can't really compare C64 worst case because that would mean 120 sprites on screen In that case you would have approx 0.65 MHz essential speed, but then the C64 is also doing a lot of stuff where there lacks something comparable on A8. The entire screen would be filled with sprites.

 

By the way, Atari can output sprite overlays without any DMA cycles using Grafn registers.

Yeps, but then again you need to update the register with the CPU which costs more cycles.

[Crazyace]

...

I'm quite interested in horizontal reuse of players - but I think it will consume the cpu cycles quite quickly

 

Persistence do in effect make it as if the image is being doubled. Even Amiga in interlace is writing to every other field and causes flicker but if the fade to black is slower, it reduces the flicker. I have re-used horizontal players multiple times-- in fact 9 players total on one scanline by doubling Players 0..3 and using Player 5 as is since it's too complex to double on one scanline.

 

9 sprites is quite cool - how did you manage that?

 

lda #xpos5 ; sta hposp0

lda #xpos6 ; sta hposp1

lda #xpos7 ; sta hposp2

lda #xpos8 ; sta hposp3

..

lda #xpos0 ; sta hposp0

lda #xpos1 ; sta hposp1

lda #xpos2 ; sta hposp2

lda #xpos3 ; sta hposp3

 

That's not too bad, 48 cycles per line, but there's no change to the either the graphics data or the player colour? What were you using it for? I guess you could change the colours and graphics with no time to spare - not really a game situation, but it could be good for backgrounds/still effect

 

The best situations come about when both sides admit that there are advantages to the other platform.

It is foolish to deny the C64 sprite capabilities ( they are 75% of the chip ), and the fact that the sprites and the colour graphics are 320 and the scrolling are at 320 pixel resolution is a major advance.

But for the time the Atari was a major advance, and the colour capabilities are still ahead of the C64, and the faster CPU is helpful in some situations. And , Antic allows much easier manipulation of large maps - ( I remember many early C64 games only scrolling the main charset , not the colour map ... I read that Mayhem uses a Vic hack to scroll colour ram though - it would be interesting to know what the hack is )

 

If you are going to state "faster CPU is helpful in some situations", you mine as well be fair and use the same for 1/320 pixels scrolling is helpful in some situations and C64s wider or 320 resolution sprites are helpful in some situations. And inversely, Atari's high sprites are helpful in some situations.

 

I get color graphics in Atari's 320 mode especially with priority set to 0.

 

I would think that 320 resolution sprites would require more cycles to set as it's no longer an 8-bit value; need to check for overflow and set the MSB in some other register.

 

320 pixel res is > 160 pixel for sprites ... and can you get colour graphics on individual 320 res pixels?

The resolution is definitely one of the big advantages of the c64 - especially for sprites.

[atariksi]

But the upper bound comparison is the best ratio where C64 screen is blank and Atari is blank for applications that only need to output say color codes or something or for higher quality audio. In that case Atari is 68% faster.

Real world applications which blank the screen are not too common. Packers do that, but what else? Sound? Ok 4 channel mod replay perhaps but there CPU speed is only a sidenote, more important is the output quality and that relies on more things than MHz alone.

...

 

No, the DMA interferes so having screen off helps a lot. I simulated a 5-bit DAC on Atari, but it has problems if there's too much DMA going on. But back to the point, when you give a range Atari is 20%..50% faster, it's wrong since it's 68% upper limit. There are many applications that can use CPU speed at lesser display (like better at sync. communications).

We don't want to argue how useful that mode may be but it sets the upper limit of how fast it can be.

 

>>Now let's take the worst case where Atari uses the char mode and sprites to the C64's worst case where you also constantly read char data by manipulating the VIC registers and are also showing all sprites...

 

>You can't really compare C64 worst case because that would mean 120 sprites on screen In that case you would have approx 0.65 MHz essential speed, but then the C64 is also doing a lot of stuff where there lacks something comparable on A8. The entire screen would be filled with sprites.

 

No, I was just talking display modes and DMA cycles so there's no CPU involved.

 

>>By the way, Atari can output sprite overlays without any DMA cycles using Grafn registers.

 

>Yeps, but then again you need to update the register with the CPU which costs more cycles.

 

No CPU involved and No DMA cycles. Just set the Grafn registers and HPOSn and colors at initialization and you can have color bar display as a free-bee (even cover the whole screen and use priorities).

[emkay]

320 pixel res is > 160 pixel for sprites ... and can you get colour graphics on individual 320 res pixels?

The resolution is definitely one of the big advantages of the c64 - especially for sprites.

 

 

The problem with the C64's colours is that they are fixed. A picture at 320x240 would look like this one, if the colours were free.... With the Atari you could do at least a 80x240 resoloution with the fitting colours, and yes also with the different hues.

[Irgendwer]

I think you got to images swapped. There's no way the C= can produce those colors.

 

Obviously the right image comes from the Atari, as you can notice the use of overscan...

 

CU

Irgendwer

[Crazyace]

320 pixel res is > 160 pixel for sprites ... and can you get colour graphics on individual 320 res pixels?

The resolution is definitely one of the big advantages of the c64 - especially for sprites.

 

 

The problem with the C64's colours is that they are fixed. A picture at 320x240 would look like this one, if the colours were free.... With the Atari you could do at least a 80x240 resoloution with the fitting colours, and yes also with the different hues.

 

Yes - which is why I always say that the Atari has better colours. - The post was about the 320 pixel resolution though which IS an advantage to the C64

[emkay]

Yes - which is why I always say that the Atari has better colours. - The post was about the 320 pixel resolution though which IS an advantage to the C64

 

One has the colours and one has the resolution. That's the fact. So this thread can go 100 years without a conclusion, because the taste makes the base for arguing, not the technical facts.

[Artlover]

You are a hypocrite since you yourself don't follow your own advice. You shouldn't be replying to this if you think it's not relevant to the thread.

No, it's not relevant to the thread, but it is relevantly off-topic towards responding to people who want to argue the issue. Just because a claim is off-topic doesn't mean it should go unrefuted. Otherwise anyone could make any outlandish statement they want and have the last word.

 

The C64 has 4096 colors! - Don't correct me now, that would be off topic.

 

Some software runs the same on Apple, C64, Atari but that does not make them equal on the hardware level.

No, it don't make them equal on a hardware level. And? Most people honestly don't care about that, only the final product.

 

That really just served to prove my point about how some people want to look at the issue. 'Damn it, it's looks & plays exactly the same, how can I declare being superior to them.....{think}.....Hardware!' - Uh, the software is the SAME! Why does someone still need to feel theirs is "better" somehow?

 

It just don't work on these old single process machines where all you can/will being doing is what you are doing, and if that is exactly the same between machines, one having more CPU time or Memory left over or whatever doesn't gain anyone anything towards that end. Really, find me a "typical" user from the 1980's who owned both machines and was looking to buy a game that looked/played/sounded exactly the same on both who made their decision because of something like one used less CPU resources then the other or because one used sprites instead of char groups when they can't tell the difference.

 

It even goes as far sometimes of comparing the kind of plastics used to make the cases to justify superority. What's next, how many screws are used to hold the cases together, or the steel composition of those screws? Be a perfectly valid argument for someone who actually cares about that as a reason to compare, would it not. Still won't make that piece of software that looks & plays exactly the same on all any better on one vs another.

 

Sure the A8 is better then the C64 based on a lot of low level raw hardware specs. But at the end of the day, what was "actually being accomplished" wasn't that far apart alot of the time. Ask any woman; it's not about how big it is but what you do with it. If Mr 12"er isn't making her "happy", but Mr 6"er is, for all it's "worth", Mr 12"er is just going to have a tired hand & forearm.

 

Not everyone "cares about" the journey (hardware), only the destination (final product).

 

Post #1422:

I've got one word:

 

ZAXXON

 

No amount of Atari bias in the world can make that better then the C64 version.

Well, if you want to take it out of the obvious context it was said in and read what you want out of it, I can understand why you would assume that.

 

In comparing two existing games, as I was, what was said there is that no amount of bias can make one claim that the A8 version as it exists now is better then the C64 version as it exists now. I mistakenly assumed I wouldn't have to qualify those specifics as I wasn't aware that in comparing two games that we apparently also had to consider un-made/non-existant versions too.

[Oswald]

It must be inarguably definitive, since I just scrolled through three pages after it and saw no response at all.

 

Also, in a related note, I was reading that there were spectrum and other emulators for the a8bit? I had no idea anyone ever squeezed emulators out of the old 8bits. Thats right up there wtih 3d as another ultimate 'muscle test.' That would be another good indicator of raw hardware superiority, imho.

 

I have replied to it. at 3d a8 will be always better, but thats just one aspect. everyone knows in what areas is the c64 or a8 better. tho you seem to argue that a8 can do 2d games better which is quite baffling.

[Oswald]

A simple game for Atari, is a lot of fun for the XEGS users o whenever have the gunlight controls. Instead the C64 version has a bad gfx look, and bored loading times to get the next level or menu. Really this game is not fun with joysticks.

 

hmm, the VICII has support for lightpen... how about gtia?

[Oswald]

@ Oswald

if you are really interested regarding the speccy/apple 2 emulator and why Antic is so important:

 

nice stuff, but dont tell me c64 cant emulate those machines .)

[Oswald]

@ Oswald...

 

just in case ppl do not know you... (Albert this is not an attack... )

 

http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=70212

 

so... What I personally do not understand... why are you not taking your knowledge & energy and create something? I still don't believe that you don't want to touch the evil...

 

doing demos = creating something imho Sorry, but I rather have sid, sprites, 256 chars, etc than having to fight with the cpu to get more than 5 colors onscreen, softsprites, etc when I will make a game.

[Bryan]

A simple game for Atari, is a lot of fun for the XEGS users o whenever have the gunlight controls. Instead the C64 version has a bad gfx look, and bored loading times to get the next level or menu. Really this game is not fun with joysticks.

 

hmm, the VICII has support for lightpen... how about gtia?

No, but Antic does:

 

 

54284 D40C PENH

 

® Light pen horizontal position (564). Holds the horizontal color

clock count when the pen trigger is pressed.

 

54285 D40D PENV

 

® Light pen vertical position (565). Holds the VCOUNT value

(above) when the pen trigger is pressed. See the Hardware

Manual, p. II-32, for a description of light pen operation.

[Oswald]

. And the biggest problem the C128 had, was being compatible with the C64. As a result, every company coded software for the C64 and the C128's abilities were rarely used.

 

there were hardly more resources in the c128. you could have 128k ram, or use the 80 column video chip which had ugly colors, no sprites at 2mhz. and roughly thats it.

[Oswald]

The Amiga OCS was Jay Miner & Co.'s baby, and is a follow up of their previous work on the chipset for the A8. Agnus was a further enhancement to ANTIC, Denise was an improved version of GTIA with outputs for RGB video as well as composite, and Paula was an improved POKEY.

 

the antic gtia relation is a different approach compared to agnus/denis. amiga can display gfx without the copper fex... and pokey doesnt supports samples. its quite a stretch to say there's more connection than some vague design principles being similar.

 

who except jay miner was working on both machines?

[Oswald]

I see no reason they couldn't have included a mode that left the MMU at $D500 but was otherwise C64-compatible. Such a mode could have made it easy to have programs that would run on either a C64 or C128, but would benefit from the extra features of the latter.

 

c128 mode is basically a c64 with mmu at d500. the 80column video chip is visible also in c64 mode.

[Oswald]

(Although I wouldn't call Oswald's post insulting, just boasting about what the C64 can do. Let's turn the Turrican tables and ask why it hasn't been done already?)

 

because there's not a single coder on the c64 scene who wants to make an emulatoer which runs many times slower as the original machine.

[Oswald]

There was an "enhanced" C-64 mode on the 128, however unintentional.

 

You can run in 2 MHz mode in the borders. Some software took advantage of it.

 

you can run 2mhz anywhere. only in the display area of the vic you will see garbage. but you can use even the 80column chip in c64 mode.

[emkay]

The Amiga OCS was Jay Miner & Co.'s baby, and is a follow up of their previous work on the chipset for the A8. Agnus was a further enhancement to ANTIC, Denise was an improved version of GTIA with outputs for RGB video as well as composite, and Paula was an improved POKEY.

 

the antic gtia relation is a different approach compared to agnus/denis. amiga can display gfx without the copper fex... and pokey doesnt supports samples. its quite a stretch to say there's more connection than some vague design principles being similar.

 

who except jay miner was working on both machines?

 

 

GTIA can show graphics without ANTIC and POKEY was build to co work with a 6502, as used in many arcades.

What Miner did was a conclusion of the given. Just to say "he made his "homework".

Edited December 10, 2008 by emkay

[Oswald]

22 - DEFENDER

 

But those 21 titles combined do not even surpass the greatness that is Turrican!!

 

from the screenshots alone one can see a8 sports very early 80s titles mostly. I get constantly ammazed how old games the c64 had. and many of those comparisons are based on "better colors" (subjective) "better sfx'" (with the sid on c64? doub it, and subjective again)

 

dont get me started on maniac mansion, zak mckracken, pirates, the shoot em ups, the list is long. c64 gaming is defined by those, and not games like galaxion.

[Oswald]

Have you read the reviews of the "origninal" time then? Nothing against the Amiga version of Turrican, but the C64 game is all but "high standard".

It got 71% only. This means to the mainstream "not worth buying". The C64 version lacks in gameplay and that is the outmost point of a Game. Graphics 80% means to have a nice interactive graphics demo there. And I guess they gave the game a special C64 bonus, because the Amiga graphics - which look clearly better in all cases - got only 82% (should have been a 92% if fairly compared)...

 

lacking gameplay huh ? but when it comes to one screen "shoot stuff" games like "galaxion" then those has great gameplay (read allas' reviews) so biased....

 

I have found turrican when basically i've stopt playing games on the c64. and it kept me going for weeks.

[Oswald]

What Turrican? .... Turrican 1? 2? ... maybe there is a Turrican 5 that i ignored. Because the Turrican I played on a C64, haven't nothing extraordinary over the possibilities of Atari. Maybe a lot of work, but there are good way how to improve the overrated C64 version.

 

so tell me how would you _improve_ turrican given the a8 hardware

[Oswald]

What Turrican? .... Turrican 1? 2? ... maybe there is a Turrican 5 that i ignored. Because the Turrican I played on a C64, haven't nothing extraordinary over the possibilities of Atari. Maybe a lot of work, but there are good way how to improve the overrated C64 version.

 

Yes. And if all CPU power is less, just let's move the enemies interleaved (sneaking to the "Head over Heels" version on the C64)

 

doesnt sounds as an improvement.